> I now am teaching high school math at a>low achieving high school in Portland. I can spot the students who>have some depth of understanding of mathematical patterns and number>sense. Generally there's some standards-based curriculum in their>background.

Susan,I assume by your reference to "standards-based" curriculum you mean NCTM Standards-based curriculum. It is more helpful for parents andothers to be given the standards to which one refers when using theterm "standrads-based." There are other exepmplary math standards towhich good math programs are aligned, eg California Math Standards andthose developed by the Singapore Ministry of Education.

>When I see it, I am relieved for them. Not angry. Not>worried. Not frustrated with opportunity lost. Quite the contrary.>When I see a students who has had teachers who moved away from the>abstract to the meaningful, I see hope for that student's future.>We parents come with a variety of perspectives. Don't presume we>all want what we had in the way of math curriculum or instruction>for our hildren.

I think those with varying perspectives on TERC and other NCTMStandards-based programs agree students should develop deep understanding and appreciation for the mathematics they learn.

From my experience, even the harshest critics of TERC and the NCTMStandards based reform, recognize the value of questioning,discussion, student to student sharing of thoughts and ideas, askingstudents to appreciate the nature of math, efforts to make mathmeaningful, to require students to grapple with problems and concepts,and the fundamental value of developing conceptual understanding.These are hallmarks of quality education.

I've not heard suggestions waged by concerned parents or classromteachers or mathematicians that any of these components lackimportance and value.

Where perpsectives diverge is on issues of content, specificity ofgoals and objectives grade by grade, the fundamental value of learningstandard arithmetic algorithms , the requisite for some explicitinstruction and regular objective assessments, and the necessity formastery of math facts and arithmetic skills in order to advance andto fully participate in conceptual development and problem solvingskills all along the way into more advanced math and science schoolcoursework and college level study.

I don't know many parents who hold most dear for their children's matheducation a repeat of what they themselves received, unless of coursethey were among the lucky minority to have received an excellentmathematics education in this country.

Those on both sides of the math wars agree our country's mathematicseducation has been mediocre at best for the great majority of ourstudents.

Please don't presume that those parents critical of TERC hunker for atime gone by where all was well in US math education, or that theyadvocate a traditional education comprised only of drill and rotelearning ( ie "fact regurgitation" or "bunch o' facts")

This is a false characterization often attached to critics of TERC,and the NCTM reform, and are often made (sadly) along with charges ofracism and elitism.

I have personally been accused of being a racist and an elitist basedpurely on the values and standards I hold for my son's mathematicseducation

Such false assumptions, so quickly made, are not only baselesspresumptions, but divisive and can be a serious threat to democraticdiscourse. And in my particular case, somewhat laughable, since I come from extremely liberal roots.